Tucker Convertible on Ebay

[john]

HEY you all,
Been busy with many other projects.

Glad to see the issues intensify on the Custom car built from parts of a Tucker.
Decent way to phrase it, huh?

Guess the NY Times is going to do an article on the Custom Car now !!!!!!

I say Custom Car because it seems a Custom Car is something built/modified from an original car manufacturer, customized and ruined in some cases, by someone else's visions and likings.

Till the next time good buddies,
John

[Tucker Fan 48]

Several people have mentioned the frame on this car. Benchmark claims Lencki built the frame for the top secret factory "convertible".
Maybe someone can answer some questions about it.

1. Can anyone prove where the frame came from? (i.e. what car it is from, etc.)

2. Does anyone have proof the frame was ever at Lencki's shop? According to Benchmark the car was there for many years. I know
former Lencki employees would be in their mid-80s by now or much older but someone would have seen it there. If the story is
true about two former Lencki employees owning the car before Reinert someone would have seen it. (family members, etc.)

3. When did Joe Lencki close his shop? (date, year, etc.)

4. Is it possible the frame is from #1027 and the re-inforcing was not done to make it stronger, but to straighten it out after the
roll over at Indy?

5. Is it possible that the frame came from one of the bodies that were at Ezras and the re-inforcing was not done to make it stronger
for the convertible, but to make it usable again after rusting away for years in a field?

[TUCKER]

Yes, correct, 1042 was cut up and many parts that were in very poor quality were put into part lots that sold over the years but many other parts like interior parts and others I have not been able to track down. Looks like Alen took this car and used the parts. Big sections are out there like the frame and a door, a back hood and maybe back half of the 1951/1054 Tucker along with the back fenders. Coul and other parts I do not know anything of or the front end of 1042 that may be on the real 1057 big back window car by now. Sorry but it is a big story on how I know all this and 1000s of hours of research. If I made a book it would be about 6 inches thick with all I know.

1042 was never stolen or scraped like they say. Just a story by Alen to make you get it off your mind like the big back window car and the convertible so you think the 1057 is also long gone.

[Tucker Fan 48]

Wow !

[TUCKER]

Once again I can prove the frame and coul is from 1027. See all my post in this subject and tell me if the 1027 car don't match the convertible. There is also ther photos of the convertible that match 1027 but you will see them later. "THE CONVERTIBL IS 1027" Please see all my photos attached to this topic and you will see. Then later in time I will show you the big main photos that show the 1027 Tucker is there!


If I had money I know I would be able to find that big back window car but I don't.

[Tucker Fan 48]

Tucker,

I had seen where you showed several parts were from #1027 but I must have missed where you mentioned the
frame being from #1027. Can I ask how you were able to determine it came from #1027? It's very interesting
since the core of the "convertible" story is that the frame was modified by Lencki as part of the top secret
project. If you are correct, (and so far it sure appears you are), then the frame under the #1057 factory
"convertible" is from the Indy roll over car and was never at Lencki. That blows a big hole in the "prototype"
story.

[Franklin6]

1042 was never stolen or scraped like they say. Just a story by Alen to make you get it off your mind like the big back window car and the convertible so you think the 1057 is also long gone.

I'm new here, so please excuse a sophomoric question. Why would anyone have a desire to claim existing cars are scraped? What's the motive to get our minds off of the big back window car? Is he parting these out? Even if true, why the secrecy...has making this convertible been the plan all along?

Thanks!

-F6

[Barry Wolk]

First, my compliments to the members of this site. I read the entire thread before I posted. Your discussions have been very adult and informative.

John- I think you make a very strong case why the Tucker convertible, whatever it is or was, will ultimately be good for our common goal of sustaining the legend of the Tucker car. One of my favorite other cars is the Continental Mark II. There are several convertible even though Ford Motor Company never produced one for the marketplace (at least one was made for Ford for William Ford, Senior). These convertibles are beautiful cars and elegantly show off the wonderful lines of the 1956 and 1057 Continentals. The "Tucker convertible" looks like it will do the same for the Tucker '48. I will join you in standing in line to see it (even while not believing it is "real").

Larry

Larry,

You have good taste in automobiles, Tuckers and Continentals. Both crushed by a heartless big brother. I am the proud owner of one of the original three Continental Mark II convertibles made from new cars. Subsequently, many copies have been made from used cars. I consider that high praise, but they are copies, nonetheless.

The convertible you mention was made for Continental by the Derham Body Company. It was made as a show car, later retired, repainted and given to the WCF family as a daily driver. They really didn't own it as all of their daily drivers were owned by Ford, for liability reasons.

My car's history was contentious, to say the least. However, I found actual Ford documents and found the man that ended up being the Production Manager at Hess & Eisenhardt. He remembered the project. How could he not? I state this as I am sure that someone would remember a project like a Tucker convertible, no matter how secret it was.

Although, I do have to say that large auto companies often didn't know what other divisions or districts were doing. Ford headquarters disavowed the authenticity of my car until one of their own VPs recognized H & E's work. It turns out that my car was being shipped to Chicago in its soft shipping bag when it came loose and rubbed the paint off of the hood and roof. The car was supposed to be an "Introductory Unit", meant to sit on the showroom floor until the pipeline was full. It, along with another black car were noted specifically in a letter from Ford's Chicago District asking about what to do with the cars as they were rejected by the dealers. There was no response in the Benson Ford Research Library's records.

Hess & Eisenhardt did business with Ford Marketing, based in Chicago. They were the customer that H & E made two convertibles for. That's why Headquarters never knew about them. My story only shows that there must be some record or remembrance of a Tucker Convertible, or it's not real.



http://cardomain.com/ride/340096

[TUCKER]

Ok, here we go again with the right side of the convertible and 1027. The two cars match wery good in damage in the same areas and same color where shown. Enjoy the photos of the right side for now. Left side match very good also as I will post later.

[TUCKER]

more!

[TUCKER]

back is from 1055 with inner wells from 1018

[TUCKER]

other 1027 convertible photos

[TuckerCar]

Ricardo, you amaze me.

[john]

Tucker fan 48,
Good point you made about researching Lencki, been there and done that!!!

Would it be surprising to anyone if a person that was heavily involved with Lencki for many many years stated they never saw or heard of the chassis at Lencki's?

Think about this, would Preston allow a prototype 4 door roof and body to be sold at auction, or would it have been more realistic to cut it up and forever loose what he payed to have started as he knew the writing was on the wall that he was finished and his dream had been destroyed?

According to the clubs archives notes and records as previously written herein, #57 was sold and later spotted at Ezra's, if this is the case, the story intensifies.

Tucker, yes it would almost take a book to describe, sort and solidify facts.
Glad the Blue Easter egg got everybody thinking in sound, logical and realistic thought !!!
Keep up the good work.
John

[tin goose]

I personally don't think the double stampings of #57 are anything significant. Take a look at these stampings on the cowl of #48. Sure the font is different (I'm sure there are various ones used on these tuckers), but the 4 is double stamped too